How Templated Requirements Specifications Inhibit Creativity in Software Engineering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Desiderata is a general term for stakeholder needs, desires or preferences. Recent experiments demonstrate that presenting desiderata as templated requirements specifications leads to less creative solutions. However, these experiments do not establish how the presentation of desiderata affects design creativity. This study, therefore, aims to explore the cognitive mechanisms by which presenting desiderata as templated requirements specifications reduces creativity during software design. Forty-two software designers, organized into 21 pairs, participated in a dialog-based protocol study. Their interactions were transcribed and the transcripts were analyzed in two ways: (1) using inductive process coding and (2) using an a-priori coding scheme focusing on fixation and critical thinking. Process coding shows that participants exhibited seven categories of behavior: making design moves, uncritically accepting, rejecting, grouping, questioning, assuming and considering quality criteria. Closed coding shows that participants tend to accept given requirements and priority levels while rejecting newer, more innovative design ideas. Overall, the results suggest that designers fixate on desiderata presented as templated requirements specifications, hindering critical thinking. More precisely, requirements fixation mediates the negative relationship between specification formality and creativity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.140 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".